06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Actions under the POTA/UAPA; Sunset Feature ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19191]

"In 2004 the government repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and replaced it with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Nonetheless, SAHRDC reported that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention awaiting prosecution under lapsed special terrorism legislation, and that cases opened under POTA and Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) continued through the judicial system. [...] POTA contained a sunset feature, which gave the central POTA review committee one year to review all existing POTA cases. The government established three central review committees to review the cases registered under POTA. The committees were required to review all cases registered under POTA by September 2005, but at year's end, numerous cases had not been reviewed and at least 400 persons remained under detention, according to AI. The sunset provisions also allowed the government to make new arrests under POTA, despite its repeal, if the arrests were tied to an existing POTA case. The government could issue a new indictment on a case opened five years earlier under POTA, even if the government was never associated with the case. It can also extend the one-year limit for reviews; however, at year's end, it had not done so. The law provides that the review committees constituted by the government shall review all cases registered under POTA by September 20, 2005. [...] UAPA and POTA continued to be used to hold people in jail for extended periods prior to the filing of formal charges. Human rights groups reported that the revised UAPA contained important improvements over the POTA. For example, it does not allow coerced confessions to be admitted as evidence in court. In February 2005 the NHRC announced comprehensive guidelines regarding arrest, which included establishing reasonable belief of guilt; avoiding detention if bail is an option; protecting the dignity of those arrested; not allowing public display or parading, and allowing access to a lawyer during interrogation. Police often ignored these guidelines.
 

"

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18440]

"There were 350 cases under POTA across India. Of these, over one-third were under trial and the rest were under investigation. The maximum number of cases was reported from Jharkhand, with 147 cases and 1127 accused, followed by Jammu and Kashmir (91), Andhra Pradesh (43), Delhi (23), Gujarat (14) and Maharashtra (13). In Andhra Pradesh, less than 10 per cent of the cases had reached the POTA court. The scenario was not different elsewhere. As on 13 July 2005, only 22 out of the 147 POTA cases were under trial in Jharkhand and more than two-thirds of the accused were absconding. While Gujarat and Maharashtra had fewer cases registered under POTA, the number of accused in these states was surprisingly high. There were 456 accused in just 14 POTA cases in Gujarat, while in Maharashtra, 131 people were accused in 13 cases.[343] [...]"

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2006 ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17250]

"More than a year after the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), cases of all those held under the Act had not been fully reviewed within the stipulated period. In addition, a number of state governments had not taken action on the recommendations of a judicial committee set up to review the cases. Human rights organizations continued to express concern over amendments made to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act which granted special powers to the state, similar to those previously provided by the POTA. Although the 1958 Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was under review, there was concern over its continued enforcement in “disturbed areas”, including large parts of the north-east. Syed Geelani, a Kashmiri lecturer sentenced to death under the POTA for conspiring, planning and abetting the attack on the parliament building in New Delhi in December 2001 and acquitted on appeal in 2003, was shot and injured in February outside his lawyer’s office. The inquiry into the shooting was entrusted to the very police force that Syed Geelani alleged had harassed him since his release. An appeal filed by police against his acquittal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in September."

Document(s): Open document

25.05.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

POTA repealed, but several states want to introduce legislation containing provisions similar to those in the POTA ("Annual Report 2005") [#32264],  [ID 6313]

"[...]In September the government fulfilled its election pledge to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) which it said had been “grossly misused” and which had led to widespread human rights violations. The cases of all those held under the act were to be reviewed within a year. However, there were concerns over amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which included provisions similar to those in the POTA. There were also concerns that the definition of “terrorist acts” in the bill remained vague and open to broad interpretation. Several states indicated that they would introduce legislation containing provisions similar to those in the POTA. [...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

22.10.2004 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Indian government repeals the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) ("India: POTA Repeal a Step Forward for Human Rights") [#26653],  [ID 6314]

Document(s): Open document

12.10.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance contains notable improvements to the POTA, but also include verbatim provisions from the POTA that were repeatedly misused and adds provisions which further erode the rights of the accused ("The Reincarnation of POTA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance is POTA’s Second Coming [HRF/106/04]") [#26387],  [ID 6316]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

POTA ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6315]

"[...]
5.34 The report indicated that in March 2002 the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) was enacted into law and changed to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The POTA allows detention without charge for 3 months, and a further 3 months if allowed by a special judge, deems not disclosing information to the authorities about terrorist activities an offence, and provides extensive new powers to ban organisations and seize their assets. The act is similar to the TADA in its provisions for detentions, summary trials, and the use of testimony obtained under duress. In addition, the act provides for special courts to try offences, place the burden of proof at the bail stage on the accused, allows confessions made to a police officer admissible as evidence, extends the period of remand from 15 to 60 days, and sets mandatory sentences for terrorism-related offences. ”Human rights groups alleged that the governments have invoked POTA selectively and on dubious grounds against the political opponents of the ruling parties and persons belonging to the minority communities…. In December, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the POTA and held that journalists and lawyers have no right to withhold information regarding a crime under the pretext of professional ethics. The court also ruled that under POTA mere "moral support" for a terrorist organization did not constitute an offence under the Act. Despite this ruling, POTA was used to arrest members of various organizations and opposition political parties on charges of publicly expressing support for the banned LTTE terrorist group. For example, in March the Tamil Nadu government reported that 42 persons were detained under the POTA, four of whom were arrested for expressing support for the LTTE.” [2c](p10)

5.35 The report continues, “In March [2003] the Government issued a directive to form a POTA review committee to examine the use of the law in various states and prepare a report of findings and recommendations. In October [2003], the government gave statutory powers to the POTA Review Committee for redress of complaints by individuals. The POTA Review Committee reviewed cases, and its findings were binding on the government and interrogating police officers. The Committee had not issued a final report by year’s end.”[2c](p10)

5.36 BBC news reported on 10 August 2004 that the new Congress-led government is to repeal the controversial POTA which has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International for being “draconian”. Critics say that after the Gujarat riots of 2002, Muslims were unfairly singled out by POTA.[32cw]
[...]

6.244 Amnesty International (AI) in an open letter to the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, dated 2 December 2003, expressed concern about the “scores” of people who continued to be held under Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) (2002) powers. AI welcomed the fact that POTA powers had not been used to arrest Kashmiris during 2003, but pointed out that the detainees were being arbitrarily detained in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. AI also considered that the state government had failed to live up to an election commitment to release a large number of detainees being held outside Jammu and Kashmir. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

28.03.2002 - Source: National Legislative Bodies

Anti-Terrorism Act (POTA), including list of allegedly terrorist organizations ("The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002") [#10882],  [ID 6317]

Document(s): Open document